Establishing a Corporate Responsibility Ombudsman: Enhancing remedy through state-based non-judicial mechanisms?

Abstract

This article assesses the efficiency of non-judicial grievance mechanisms in providing victims of corporate human rights violations with improved access to remedy. As no such mechanism is currently available, this article formulates a proposal for a new mechanism in the form of a corporate responsibility ombudsman, which would offer a great deal of flexibility as well as being an inexpensive, expeditious and informal manner of dealing with such issues. The article argues in favour of utilizing states’ regulatory arsenal to improve victims’ access to remedy extraterritorially. Based on recent international developments, I elaborate approaches to human rights due diligence regulation and export credit financing by means of two corporate responsibility ombudsman proposals. In relation to these proposals, I divide the effectiveness criteria of Principle 31 of the United Nations Guiding Principles into three main categories: empowerment, investigation and enforcement. Since obtaining sufficient evidence is of paramount to those seeking remedies for violations of corporate responsibility, states should bestow quasi-judicial powers on corporate responsibility ombudsmen to achieve efficiency, which could also create legitimacy. This article provides decision-makers and scholars with insights into how access to remedy could be synchronized with the momentum of human rights due diligence legislation in the European Union and beyond.

The role of ombudsman: Resolving financial disputes in Malaysia

“…The root term of the ombudsman is a Swedish word that means “representative” or “proxy,” and sometimes, they casually use terms such as ombuds‐officer and ombudsperson (Raja Abdul Aziz & Abdul Hamid, 2017). Historically, the post of ombudsman began in 1809 in Sweden as a non‐judicial body to oversee government administration and the judiciary (Saloranta, 2021). In other words, the ombudsman term is not originally used for financial disputes but is derived from the service of complaints made by the citizen to the administration of the government.…”

The EU Whistleblowing Directive: An Opportunity for (Operationalizing) Corporate Human Rights Grievance Mechanisms?

“…Saloranta (2021), p 122. 164 OECD (2020), pp 32-33.165 United Nations (2011), UNGP 31(d), p 33 [emphasis added].166 Ibid.167 Whistleblowing Directive, recital 93.168 Ibid., recital 1.169 European Parliament (2021), Art.…”